To:G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY

Written:Written on October 17, 1921Published:First published in 1933 inLenin Miscellany XXIII.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1976,

      Moscow,Volume 45,

      pages343b-344a.Translated:Yuri SdobnikovTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet ArchiveYou may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Thisis secret.

Readit and return this very day, tomorrow morning, at
the latest.

Theauthor[1]is partly right: I shall change the
assignment to the State Planning Commission in theconclusion(assignment to the People’s Commissariat for Agriculture).

Pleasethink about the way to co-ordinate andspecifyS.P.C. tasks and let me have your plan (draft decision
on drawing a line of distinction between S.P.C. and the
planning commissions)in writing.

Withcommunist greetings,Lenin

[1]Theauthoris N. Osinsky, Deputy People’s Commissar for
Agriculture, who in his letter of October 17, in reply to Lenin’s letter
(see this volume, Document 444), insisted on a legal settlementof the relations between the People’s Commissariat for Agriculture
and Gosplan. He proposed that Gosplan’s role should be confined
“only to a general co-ordination of plans submitted by the
departments; Gosplan is not to work out any plans on its own,
everything being done in the planning commissions of the
Commissariats” (Central Party Archives of the Institute of
Marxism-Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee).

Inreply, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky wrote that N. Osinsky was
right “in the sense that Gosplan’s work should have a follow-up
character. But it is wrong to interpret this as meaning that the
people at Gosplan should in some way engage in ‘summarising’,
without having special sections which make use of some of the
departmental specialists. I have already raised with all the
sections the question of transforming and delimiting the work of
primary planning organs and our own work” (ibid.),
Krzhizhanovsky went on to set out a number of measures to improve the
work of Gosplan.